Convert me to film - I need info , please help :)

captainjman

captainjman

Well-known member
The more I talk about my sony F55, the more I want to buy a real film camera - I just can't afford it.

Can you give me an idea of what the cost of ownership / operation is for a 35mm film camera.. including developing, stock, maintenance...

I want to get into it, but I don't think I have the $$$$

Is it super expensive?
 
It's not so much the film cameras that are expensive, or their maintenance, it's the stock. And the processing! Just call Kodak to get an idea of what you'd be up against.
The F55 is, like, one of the best three cameras in the entire world right now. Surely there's a way you can make it suit your needs?
 
It's so expensive I sold all my film gear years ago, and I had my own lab and telecine to keep costs down. We had a client last year that insisted we shoot their food project on 35mm, so I rented a 435 to shoot with, and upon seeing the footage they hated it, claiming it was too grainy. We wanted it to look like shots X in your demo. Ah, that was an ultra low cost shoot done with a 5DmkIII. We ended up reshooting everything with the Canon and they were happy, until they got the bill for the film shoot which added $14K to the invoice.
 
It's no longer expensive to buy a film camera. If you look on eBay, you can find 35mm Mitchells for under $3k, some with motors and other accessories. You can find a really good 16mm with accessories for under $2k.

The main expense is the film, processing and transfer.
 
I shot 16mm film for TV finish professionally for about 10 years between 1974 and 1984. The cameras were less expensive and far more mobile than high end broadcast grade gear of the day. Film, processing and transfer cost was at least competitive with video equipment rental costs for most short projects where image quality meant something beyond what 3/4 U-matic could deliver.
That ended when the first gen Betacams were introduced if you worked primarily in low to midrange industrial/commercial production.
In the right hands, current gen digital cameras can produce very close to film like quality for most practical purposes, though there are still significant aesthetic differences at the margins.
 
captainjman said:
Is it super expensive?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. If you have to ask, you can't afford it. You can pick up a Mitchell body cheap to play around with, but to take advantage of the quality film has over video nowadays you need an Arriflex kit which if you want to own if you can find one used won't see much change out of say $25000. I'm not quite saying film is dead - I do note most of the film nostalgia is from people who have never shot film, those who have are pretty much over it.
 
The last time I put a bid together for a feature shot on film (Super 16mm) was in 2009. Now my bid was with camera, lens and support rental included. The total costs for that plus raw stock, processing and transfer was right at $60K. I ended up not being able to do the project and they ultimately shot with an F3 for just under twice what just the film production budget I put together would have cost.

Here are the basic costs of producing with 35mm film.

A 1000' roll of KODAK VISION3 500T Color Negative Film 5219 from Kodak costs $699.50 (Plus shipping). This will get you about 10 minutes of shooting time. 35mm film at 24fps runs at 90 feet a minute so you get a little more than 10 minutes, but there is some waist at the head and tail of a roll.

Processing that roll of film at Spectra Film & Video will cost $0.19 (19 cents) a foot. So, a 1000' roll with cost $190.00. That will give you a processed negative.

The negative will then need to be transferred to an editable format. There is a lot of variation in the costs for this, but it is all pretty high. Using the example of Spectra Film and Video their transfer costs are $425.00 per hour with, I think, a half hour minimum charge. Most transfers I have ever done have worked out to being charged at 3 times the running time. So for a 1000' roll you MIGHT be able to get it transferred at a billed half hour, so figure $212.25. There are other incidental charges you will have to pay but they vary.

So where are we? Taking the above costs for raw stock, processing and transfer your 1000' roll of KODAK VISION3 500T Color Negative Film 5219 will cost you $1,101.75 to get to an editable format. That is for TEN MINUTES of footage.
 
Last edited:
I thought I would do the same break down for 16mm (Super16 would be the way to go).

A 400' roll of KODAK VISION3 500T Color Negative Film 7219 costs 160.80. 400' is 10 minutes in 16mm. (40 feet per minute)

Processing is still $0.19 (19 cents) a foot, so one roll would cost $76.00.

Transfer is base on running time so it would still be about a billable half hour or $212.25.

All told, for 10 minutes of 16mm film, to an editable format, is $449.05.
 
A friend has just "invested" in a 24 track analogue tape machine - he's doing the audio version of what you're thinking about, and frankly, it's just crazy. Those film prices are to get you to the stage when you can think about editing - and what will you edit on? Then think of the costs to get the edit onto the distribution medium, and have more than one copy of your precious material.
 
I have thought recently, that my ideal workflow would be to shoot film, and then process the stock (yes, all of it - no work prints, straight to release print) and scan that. Then edit in an NLE and keep it in the digital domain from there. Obviously, you would hope to keep your shooting ratio down, and keep good logs so you aren't processing anything you aren't going to use.

The reason I say this is because to me, digital is great for storing a beautiful image, but still not very good (imho, speaking of my personal preference) at capturing motion. So, for me, to be able to shoot film, then scan everything into digital would be a wonderful way to go.

Maybe.
 
OP- Here is an idea; there are a ton of 35mm cameras on ebay right now, Id just buy a tested/working one, some short ends from reelgoodfilm and shoot some tests and see if you like it. If your a student (by any means, if you have a student ID still)- you can possibly get a student discount at fotokem for processing and get it down to ~.12/foot (can't recall student rates off hand). Definitely get a good scan, personally I use cinelicious.tv and just go 1080p to prores on a drive, but you can get crazy too and go straight up DI with a 4k Dpx/cineon gamma if you so fancy.

16mm is pretty awesome though and look very similar to 35mm if your using a lower speed/finer grain stock. Can save a lot of money there in acquisition, but if your heart is set on 35mm go for it.

You'll also want to have one of these and one of these on hand if you don't already. You can just sell it all after if you decide you don't want to own film stuff anymore on ebay, full circle- but you'll have film footage on hand to play with and the experience of shooting on film.

Infamy- Sounds to me like you should just try to get your hands on some color reversal, shoot it, manually cut it and project it ; )
 
Infamy said:
I have thought recently, that my ideal workflow would be to shoot film, and then process the stock (yes, all of it - no work prints, straight to release print) and scan that. Then edit in an NLE and keep it in the digital domain from there. Obviously, you would hope to keep your shooting ratio down, and keep good logs so you aren't processing anything you aren't going to use.

The reason I say this is because to me, digital is great for storing a beautiful image, but still not very good (imho, speaking of my personal preference) at capturing motion. So, for me, to be able to shoot film, then scan everything into digital would be a wonderful way to go.

Maybe.
Click to expand...

This still is a widely used practical methodology for feature films and for TV. Much less so for TV these days, but S16 was the shooting medium of choice for a lot of 80's TV series.
 
Every new programn i watch on my 4K tv now is recorded in briliant quality on digital cameras,when will this nonsense cease.
 
captainjman said:
The more I talk about my sony F55, the more I want to buy a real film camera - I just can't afford it.

Can you give me an idea of what the cost of ownership / operation is for a 35mm film camera.. including developing, stock, maintenance...

I want to get into it, but I don't think I have the $$$$

Is it super expensive?
Click to expand...


check out t.v. shows like BREAKING BAD TRUE DETECTIVE BOARDWALK EMPIRE....this will show you a lot about working for film...I started working with film about a year ago while still in school...bought a moviecam 35mm for around 2,000 and super 16mm ar2 for around 1500.00....it really made a big difference for me career wise ...! pre production is key..and shooting on film is cheaper than renting out an alexa (post etc..) and super 16mm is cheap...feature film like El Mariachi was about 5,0000
 
An Arri is not the only digital superior to 16mm,digitaly made wildlife and documentaries now look superior.
 
jlv said:
Sorry my friend, you do not know what he's talking.
Click to expand...
Sorry i Dont understand ? if you are disagreeing UK digitaly made wildlife/documentaries and dramas dont look superb , and on larger 4K tvs the better there is little point continuing,if i am missunderstanding apologies.[h=3][/h]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top